Some of us agree with the Prez on certain issues and disagree on others

[ruggerson]

And we all heve different takes on the scorecard thus far.

I agree with the stimulus package. I think he's handled the economy well. I actually think Geithner and Summers have done a pretty good job, considering the mess they were handed. Obama is to be given much credit for assembling a good economic team and letting them rip. He also used political capital to get the program through both houses of Congress, something he and Rahm handled quite adroitly.

Obama's housing plan, which gives much needed relief to homeowners with sub prime loans who are in danger of losing their homes, was timely and even broader in scope and more generous than what he had promised in the campaign.

He was quick to sign an Executive Order reversing Bush's stem cell ban. This was phenomenal news for scientists all over the country (and the world.) To say nothing of the people who have ticking clocks, waiting for science to develop better and newer therapies for currently incurable maladies.

Conversely, he was quite clear in the campaign about the "revolving door" between governmental service and the lobbying industry. He promised that no one would serve in his administration who had, for the prior two years, lobbied the government regarding substantially related regulations, contracts and policies. Once in office, his administration promptly granted waivers to some appointees (former lobbyists), violating both the spirit and the letter of his campaign pledge.

Obama has done nothing, that I can see, to end the warrantless wiretapping program started by the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, reports have surfaced that his administration has violated the terms of the revamped 2008 statute. For a lot of people, this issue is of paramount importance. If we can't trust leaders to observe the constitution itself, it erodes trust and faith in the very foundations of our system.

His track record on issues important to the GLBT community and their straight allies, which of course I take kind of personally, is just plain lousy. The only meager crumbs that gay people have received is after they raised hell nationally and the mainstream media was full of front page reports that gay folks were becoming very disillusioned with the President. His actions have all been reactive. He has not used an ounce of political capital to address these concerns. There is always hope that he will reverse course, but time is of the essence: we will not have a filibuster proof Democratic congress forever and there is never a better time to address moral issues of human rights than today.

While I'm a supporter of many things he has done so far, I am not inclined to idolize him or his family. I voted for him. I'm glad he's our President versus the alternative, but I have no great fondness for him on a personal level. He doesn't respect my family enough to warrant fighting for our rights, and I'm sure part of my gut response to him is grounded in those very personal feelings. Maybe that will change over time. But I didn't particularly love the last two Democratic Presidents either, for various reasons, and it didn't stop me from generally supporting their administrations.

On DU, what I've noticed is that if I post something critical of Obama, I am invariably accused of being a "hater" or wanting a "pony" or screamed at in some form or other by some of his more ardent supporters.

If I post something positive about him, however, I'm almost never accused of being a "cheerleader" or a "blind cultist" by his detractors.

I'm not sure what that tells me about either group, but I think in general, it's always wise to try and listen carefully to an opposing viewpoint without jumping to kneejerk disagreement.

There are many of us DU'ers, I've noticed, stuck here in the middle. Life ain't black and white. President Obama is going to continue to do things we love and things we detest.

And the beat goes on.

[ProSense]

1. Here's what you're saying

While I'm a supporter of many things he has done so far, I am not inclined to idolize him or his family. I voted for him. I'm glad he's our President versus the alternative, but I have no great fondness for him on a personal level. He doesn't respect my family enough to warrant fighting for our rights, and I'm sure part of my gut response to him is grounded in those very personal feelings. Maybe that will change over time. But I didn't particularly love the last two Democratic Presidents either, for various reasons, and it didn't stop me from generally supporting their administrations.

You seem to equate people not accepting the bitter, vitriolic distortions and trying to see the positive steps being made with idolizing the President.

In a more objective environment, there would actually be a debate, but with people screaming, "Obama is a corporate sellout" and worse, that's not possible. It's also not possible when every positive step is met with: "not enough," not meaning more can be done, but still trying to frame modest steps as selling out. Maybe there are people who really don't want health care to fail while understanding the important of a robust public option. During the month of August, the distortions coming from the left drove the confusions as much as those coming from the right. The left can ignore the right, but when the left, the media and the right in unison are pushing the false notion that Obama is going to drop the public option, that reinforces the worse fears. Most people pushing these distortions were basically saying "I told you so," not doing everything they can to preserve the public option.

Frankly, chronic whining is driving the desire to distort and seek out only the most negative spin on the administration's efforts.

The President has a lot to deal with, and expecting that he's going to right every wrong in the first year of his term is simply not realistic. He could address this or that, and someone else would step in and say, "why not this and this."

If he didn't need the four years, we could limit the term of Presidents to one, and expect them to accomplish the full agenda in that time.





edited typos

[ruggerson]

2. you're setting up an either/or construct

and a lot of people don't think that way. And a lot of people who rationally critique this administration on issues of substance are not "whining." They are articulating a strongly held belief system.

[ProSense]

3. And you are setting up a straw man

"While I'm a supporter of many things he has done so far, I am not inclined to idolize him or his family."

What exactly are you arguing: People who support the President are simply idolizing him, but those criticizing him have "a strongly held belief system"?

[ruggerson]

4. No, I'm writing about my own take on the guy

admittedly singular to me (as everyone's feelings about a politician are singular to them). I'm not putting forth the argument that we can put everyone's opinions in neatly labelled boxes. Just the opposite.

[ProSense]

5. But your take puts a strong emphasis on this, as you repeat the underlying point more than once.

"If I post something positive about him, however, I'm almost never accused of being a 'cheerleader' or a 'blind cultist' by his detractors."

It's as if supporting the President is about a game of sides.

[ruggerson]

6. that's exactly how many here seem to treat it

instead of supporting good policy and opposing bad (something very subjective to each of us), there are some, on both sides of the equation, who seem to filter almost all their reaction to individual policies through their own love/hate meter on Obama himself.

I witnessed this quite clearly during the DOJ brief on the Smelt case. DU'ers who should know better were tripping over themselves to defend the indefensible and come up with contorted and untruthful rationales why the administration had done nothing wrong.

[ProSense]

8. No, you are biased.

DU'ers who should know better were tripping over themselves to defend the indefensible and come up with contorted and untruthful rationales why the administration had done nothing wrong.

Your OP is not about your take on Obama, it's a whine about people idolizing the President.

[ruggerson]

10. we're all biased in one way or another

But some of us are biased by belief systems relating to public policy. Others are biased (both for and against) an individual leader. The Republicans and minority of Democrats for whom Obama can do no right are emblematic of that. As are the flip side.

But since you seem intent on focusing and elaborating on your erroneous impression of what I wrote, there really isn't much point to continue trying to explain it to you.

[ProSense]

16. We may all be biased, but you seem preoccupied with people who support the President. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

59. as you seem preoccupied with his detractors. nt

[Cha]

56. Exactly, that's the way

I saw it.

I was ready to like the OP until I saw it was perched on a pedestal..

[Hansel]

66. But you don't get to decide for everyone what good policy is.

Different people have different opinions about that.

I agreed with a lot of the things Obama does because I think like he does. Doesn't mean I agree with everything and that I support bad policy. I voted for him because I like how he thinks and approaches things, so I like him as a person. He is pragmatic with an obvious concern and compassion for people.

Also, I tend to give him some leeway for maneuvering in Washington DC. He cannot start dictating laws. He has to move carefully on controversial legislation, which, like it or not gay marriage and DADT are. If he tries to ram it through or moves recklessly, he could set back the opportunity to make a real change by years if not decades. His approach is going to usher in effective and permanent changes faster than the way you want him to do it even though it might seem it won't.

[ruggerson]

69. apparently you didn't read the OP

both there and elsewhere in the thread, I clearly stated these were MY subjective opinions and others would have their own. No where did I "dictate" what anyone should be thinking. Quite the contrary.

And I subjectively disagree with you on your points. First of all, a repeal of DADT is supported by 80% of the country. To say it's "controversial" is merely to spew rightwing talking points. Secondly, re: the Smelt case, even Obama himself realized, after the fact, that the first brief was incredibly offensive. His DOJ lawyers then met with gay leaders and a second brief was filed, which attemtped to ameliorate some of the legal damage the first one caused. Yet, there were dishonest people here, at the time of the first brief, declaring that there was a "strict wall" between the WH and Justice and that the brief was not offensive or damaging at all and that gay people should stfu. Of course, when the DOJ came out with the second, revised brief, basically validating EVERYTHING that gay people here had been expressing, those DU'ers suddenly were mysteriously silent.

[johnaries]

11. Well, ProSense, I don't think that's what he's saying here.

I think he's lamenting the fact that DU itself has seemed to have become a "game of sides".

I, myself, tend to be a "cheerleader" because I think he has done an excellent job so far considering what he was given to work with. But I am disappointed in some of his policies, such as his continuing of the warrantless wiretapping. I also wish that the Public Option he outlined were more robust and open to more. Although I most certainly don't believe he has "thrown us under the bus" as some here claim.

I will disagree with the OP that he has basically done nothing until he was "forced" to for the LGBT community. He did have to pick some priorities and had to deal with the economy, GITMO and torture, and the ongoing 2 wars. But he did ask the Pentagon to review ways to eliminate DADT and has asked Congress to to repeal both DADT and DOMA - after making it clear that it is up to Congress to accomplish these.

But if I understand the OP correctly, his main lament is that DU has become a "game of sides" with both sides so emotional and so zealous that it has become difficult to have serious discussions.

I have even found myself occasionally being perhaps a little over-zealous in my support. However, I will still continue my support not because I am a kool-aid drinking cheerleader, but because I think Obama has accomplished a lot and I think he will accomplish even more - even though it may not be as much as I would like.

[ProSense]

13. No, it's exactly the point of the OP as this

statement demonstrates.

[ruggerson]

54. that's a very reasonable synopsis

of what I was trying to convey, johnaries. Thanks.

[David Zephyr]

9. Thus Spake the Disciple

You actually hurt the DU and will drive still even more DU'ers to the Daily Kos where progressives and activists are welcome and where slobbering discipleship is correctly seen as anti-intellectual. You hurt Skinner's site. You remind me of those that ignorantly participated in the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution and thereby ruined it.

You worship Barack Obama. I don't. I like him, supported him in the primaries and in the election with my family's money and time. And I will continue to press him to keep his promises, as The Nation does, as MoveOn does, as the Daily Kos does, as the Huffington Post does, as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow do, as Air America does, as the HRC does, as the nation's unions do.

Your fevered chasing ruggerson, myself and other progressives from thread to thread at the DU using vulgarity in your posts (you really need to expand your vocabulary) hurts the DU and hurts Obama, as well.

Nothing I write will have any impact on you whatsoever, but you are part of the continued exodus from this once-wonderful website where ideas were exchanged. Who'd have ever thought that the DU would become a blog for a cult of personality?

[grantcart]

14. I do believe that you will be the only one that will advance the fanciful

suggestion that the thoughtful, well researched opinions of ProSense damage this site.


The OP is suggesting that people have become too intransigent here, some for and some against the President.


Your position is the most intransigent on the thread and provides some matter of proof of the OP's argument.

[David Zephyr]

17. Not fanciful at all.

Thanks for illuminating me that you consider crass and repeated vulgarity and childish name-calling "well researched opinions".

If I am the "only one", it because so many have already deserted the site for more liberal blogs and others here are simply too intimidated to speak freely.

Cultish worship has hurt the site and it is still hurting the site.

[ProSense]

18. "childish name-calling " Don't

be a hypocrite.

[David Zephyr]

19. Why don't you just publicly call for me to be tomb-stoned or sent to the guillotines?

Off with my head! Will that make you happy? Then you can go after someone else.

[cliffordu]

29. You sure set up your victimhood quite well.

Now, if you could get off your lazy ass and provide some support for what you DO believe in, that might be better.

Or maybe this is as good as you get.

Who's to say??


:shrug:

[mitchtv]

64. did you see this GDP poll?

typical fan poll
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8638214 Unfortunately even in this forum she failed to get the desired mob result

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

21. frankly there are many, many, gay posters who have been banned

or are in enough fear of being banned that they can't speak in this forum. We have literally had a gay member banned for posting the number 7.

[David Zephyr]

22. These guys don't have a clue as to how many GLBT DU'ers have left.

The reign of terror.

[dsc]

24. when you disappeared for a time I wondered if you had been banned

glad to see you weren't.

[ProSense]

27. That's a mighty self-pity party you're having there.

Audacity or mendacity?

[grantcart]

35. DU is conducting a reign of terror --- that is what you are saying correct?

[ProSense]

25. So this is really about a vendetta DU allegedly has against gay posters?

[grantcart]

26. I was not aware that the poster I am responding to is gay and cannot see

how that is the least bit relevent to the OP or the discussion we are having.

[cliffordu]

34. Nor can I.

[dsc]

40. you scoffed at the poster's claim that people were not willing to post here despite

agreeing with the poster. I was offering evidence that the poster was correct in his statement. The fact is that most people who disagree with Obama on gay rights won't post their disagreement in this forum for fear of being banned when they defend themselves against the inevitable attacks. The evidence suggests that they have every right to be afraid of that happening.

[grantcart]

42. I scoffed at the writer's inflated narcissism as a self proclaimed guardian

who is more corageous than others

If I am the "only one", it because so many have already deserted the site for more liberal blogs and others here are simply too intimidated to speak freely.

Cultish worship has hurt the site and it is still hurting the site.

While I knew that the OP was a part of the GLBT I was not aware that the poster I was referring to was and there was nothing in the OP that made it a "gay" centric point, although I understood the particular point he was making.


The poster I was responding to made completely untrue criticism about another DUer and I called him on that. Only after being rather obviously exposed as a patronizing fool did the poster then venture to make it a "anti-homophobic" defense.

You will find the interchange between that poster and myself and others rather difficult to follow because the poster has gone back and edited his response after the fact.

The general issue of the OP that people have hardened into rigid positions that is probably not helpful, was thoughtful and deserved a reasonable response.

The poster I responded to is an example of the kind of harmful attacks that the OP was talking about. I think he provided an illustration of the point.

[Prism]

38. It's becoming very "why bother"

A message has been very, very clearly sent that the most abominable homophobia will be allowed to stand, while LGBT posters best watch their step or be vanished.

Once homophobia has been institutionalized, and you know if you open your mouth in the way you want to open your mouth there will be sanctions, that some of those bigoted, trollish, homphobic individuals are allowed to bounce merrily from thread to thread while decent, hard-working activists get the axe, well, what does that say?

*shrug* Why bother posting when the playing field is tilted from the beginning?

[cliffordu]

39. I missed that in the response to the OP - can you please show it to me??

(NOW, I get accused of being sooo homophobic I cannot see it)

[Prism]

49. I wasn't talking about this thread

I was merely elaborating on a broader point I picked up from some of DavidZephyr's posts. I meant the site in general, not this thread specifically. Sorry if that was confusing.

[cliffordu]

50. I understand there's been a LOT of homophobia on the board, just

like in real life...I was confused about this thread...Thanks!!

[grantcart]

41. This is entirely different subject than the original OP

I am learning a great deal about DU that I was unaware of.


Are you saying that there has been a "Reign of Terror" as has been alleged up thread, or are you saying that DU is unintentionally homophobic due to ignorance or lack of concern?

[Prism]

48. I was just chiming in

I agree with Ruggerson's OP and general sentiments entirely.

In regards to the second part, there was a "Reign of Terror", a well-known, capricious, rule-breaking purge of many LGBT posters, but references to it are deleted on sight. We're not allowed to talk about it, because it's considered a mod call-out. Many people have commented over the past five or so months about where so many LGBT posters vanished to. Literally, dozens are gone.

But we're not allowed to talk about what happened.

[David Zephyr]

23. "Pussies".

You make my case for me. "Pussies". Feel better now? Your comfort with using that sexist term does not surprise me at all.

Hey, I'm gay. We're used to seeing the words "faggot" used here, too.

[grantcart]

30. Now try really hard to follow the line of discussion here

I know that you want to be a martyr for something or other.


You are saying that you are one of the only courageous people here so you consider others to be without courage, i.e. "pussies"


You do realize that I was referring to your charachterization of the people you dismiss and patronize and was making fun of your attitude of hubris and that the "pussies" referred to are the people that you call cowards.

In no possible use of the English language can you construct that I was calling you a "pussie" and the people you denegrate as being without courage would find my charachterization of your condensation humorous.

In fact, what I am saying, is that you consider me, and all of the people who agree with Obama - "pussies".


Have you gotten that straight or is English simply too difficult for you?

[David Zephyr]

32. "Pussies". Wow. You have such a sterling vocabulary.

At least you are consistent.

[grantcart]

33. So you repeatedly try and retreat behind your sensitive ears let me

restate the essential question that you avoid

The OP is suggesting that people have become too intransigent here, some for and some against the President.

Your position is the most intransigent on the thread and provides some matter of proof of the OP's argument.

But the dark and nihilistic world that you live in where, on a progressive Democratic discussion board you are alone in being courageous to speak without intimidation, you admit that you are unable to convince the majority here, and the rest of the party is more conservative and the rest of the country is even more conservative (wait I know that is a lot of premises but really the layers of alienation you show give no alternative) how do you reconcile yourself that you have receeded to the 1% of the 5% of the 40%? (And this is the really strange part - how is it that you think that this is a healthy and good thing?)

In other words how did it evolve that you are so special and the whole entirety of DU, the Democratic Party, the American people be so completely fucked up?

[cliffordu]

36. OK, Climb off the cross, we need the wood.

[jannyk]

62. No, I think there are a lot of us :( nt

[ProSense]

15. You think: "The Audacity of Hope? Audacity? Call It Mendacity" is constructive criticism?

The Audacity of Hope? Audacity? Call It Mendacity.

Americans would have a government-run health-care program to compete against the private insurance companies. Yes, we can, but no he won't.

<...>

That wasn't audacity. It was mendacity.

That just nonsencial babble.

[Cha]

57. You say .. "Pro Sense hurts DU"!

You call yourself a progressive and set yourself up on a pedestal and look down at others. You certainly are not a progressive, david zephyr.

[OwnedByFerrets]

52. Dont you think(believe) that certain wrongs are too large

to wait on? For example, spying on Americans? Or not investigating war crimes? Why should those things wait for years to be worked on?

[IndianaGreen]

60. Demanding full equality for LGBTs or ending the wars is not whining!

Restoring the Constitution and the rule of law are not issues to be scoffed at on behalf of some misguided and twisted sense of loyalty. As in any relationship, loyalty is a two way street. Personality cults are inherently un-American.

[grantcart]

7. I strongly admire the President and I think that history will find him a remarkable

change agent in the country.


The President is no FDR. But FDR was no FDR, because we remember only the successes that were achieved over 12 years and idolize the man. I love FDR (partly because I grew up rebellious in a home that hated FDR.) But FDR authored some rather spectacular failures. We don't remember those when we remember him for the great things he did. We also don't remember him for the way that he treated his wife. I don't know what Obama will be able to do for the country. He has elevated the role of President as husband and father to something we haven't seen before.


He takes on big issues, and he does them rather quickly.


I don't agree with the President on all issues, but I always support him, and there is a difference.

Part of the discipline of being in a SUCCESSFUL political party is that you give up some of your personal preferences in order to advance a wider range of policies. I would be happy to achieve European standards of gun control. I never bring it up here or use it to criticize the President because it is pointless. We are not going to achieve gun control in the US.

Across the world there has been a huge change in the attitude of our friends and neighbors towards the US. Those of us with family members who are foreigners who follow Islam can tell you that the change so far already exceeds the expectations that we had for four years. A path to reducing nuclear stockpiles has begun.

I have no predisposition when I read your OP and agree with some and disagree with others.

But there are others who post dozens and dozens of threads a day that attack the President and frequently use outdated and misleading links to advance their assault. Unfortunately these people have created a reflex among those that hold the President in great affection to examine any thread against the President with suspicion and hostility. You may be feeling because of the blowback from those threads, authored by others.

The issue of securing full, complete recognition of civil rights for all families is an absolute issue that must be addressed by the President and the Democratic Caucuses during Obama's first term. There are some things that only the President can address, there are some things that Congress could address without the President initiating it. I leave it to the President to prioritize the critical issues he faces. Congress could certainly help by not passing everything to the President and initiating changes to DODT and DOMA, issues that they have their fingerprints all over anyway.


Sometimes people will post a blistering attack on the President and then seemed shocked that at a site that is home to people advancing the interests of the Democratic Party there will be people who will give an impassioned defense. I find that amusing.

[msallied]

43. I have always wanted to say

how much I appreciate your strong balance of idealism with pragmatism, and how very well-reasoned your posts are. I look forward to them regularly.

[cliffordu]

44. Please don't feed the grantcart. We'll NEVER get him to take his nap.

[msallied]

46. LOL!

And your levity is always appreciated. :)

[cliffordu]

47. In my bestest Elvis voice:

"Thankyouverymuch..."

[David Zephyr]

12. Excellent and welcomed comments.

The beat goes on. K&R.

[treestar]

28. No one is idolizing

I'm sick of that shit.

We're supporting our own side, regardless of lack of total agreement.

[cliffordu]

31. K&R. Excellent.

I won't criticize any post that is this well thought out or complete, and I am one of the rudest defenders against half-assed smears around.

[BeyondGeography]

37. All well and good, but we're in a barfight with the opposition

and the next year is crucial if we're to begin the much needed process of de-Reaganizing the country after three decades and restoring some faith in government and the public space. Obama is our only hope, and he's a damned good one at that. Your support is welcome, the less nuanced the better.

[msallied]

45. No one is perfect. Even the better among us.

Accepting that there are certain disagreements, but still working together on a common goal is not a symptom of Kool-Aid drinking idolatry. If you want to see an example of that, one need only see what's happening in D.C. today.

[OwnedByFerrets]

51. GREAT post. I agree 100% with almost everything you said

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[MasonJar]

53. The tenor of this blog illustrates the original thesis. A very reasoned

thesis and obviously heartfelt but met with immediate criticism for not being pro-Obama 100%. I actually thought the poster was generous. I do not agree that the bailout helped enough ordinary citizens; oh, it bailed out a lot of banks and Wall Street firms and their investors for sure. But the man on the street, who was befuddled by the housing loan process into thinking he could buy a house he couldn't actually afford, because some greedy loan officer who was going to get his and sell it off, hasn't fared too well. And Rahm Emmanuel is as Blue Dog as they come and Obama must have known this. Both of them in their treatment of Howard Dean, who virtually set in motion the wheels which won the Democrats the WH, the House and the Senate, were despicable. I despise the fact that Obama has no intention of even investigating much less prosecuting war crimes, which by our treaty obligations he is required to do. GO SPAIN!!!!! Am I glad that he won instead of McCaina and crazy Palin? Of course! Does that mean I will support him in 2012? Not unless we get PUBLIC OPTION and a very substantial ENERGY POLICY to combat GLOBAL WARMING!

[Cha]

55. So you wrote this post to defend the haters

and call those who support him, "idolizers".?

Well you're just great, aren't you? Too bad President Obama can't be as perfect as you and the haters think you are.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Let us know when Obama restores Constitutional rule, as his oath of office requires him do do.

Until then, you are just part of the chattering class.

[scheming daemons]

58. When conservatives are actively trying to destroy this President, we have no time for

squabbling amongst ourselves.

If you agree with this President more often than you do not, then it is in YOUR best interest to "aim your guns" at the REAL opposition - the Republican party - than to aim them at OURSELVES.


Every time someone on our side goes out of their way to criticize this President, it does nothing but help the people we all universally loathe here at DU.

When you have a President that gives you MOSTLY what you want, but not all.... tearing him down because of the things he HASN'T been "right" about actually makes it much more likely that someone who agrees with you about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will be the next President.


Ted Kennedy was a great man. But his primary run against Jimmy Carter did more to bring us the "Age of Reagan" than anything else in 1980.

His heart was in the right place, but his actions brought us 30 years of deregulatory government that has brought this nation to the brink of ruin.

Ralph Nader's heart was in the right place in 2000. But his actions brought us the Bush Presidency, and 5000+ dead American soldiers because of it.



Sometimes you have to weigh your actions against the greater good.

A President that is right 75% of the time is worth fighting for against the side that produces Presidents that are right 0% of the time.

Instead of going nuts over the 25% where you disagree - and thus putting the other 75% in jeopardy - quit beating up on the guy.



That's what we're saying.


You're trying to get Tom Brady removed from the game because he's thrown a couple interceptions... not realizing that your actions make it much more likely that he gets replaced with a scrub.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Rendition and warrantless searches are still ongoing.

People are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are still pursuing imperialist policies in Latin America.

And we voted for universal health care, not insurance reform.

[CakeGrrl]

65. Yet hyperbole creeps into a generally reasonable post. "Idolize"

I disagree with that term and it detracts from the positives in your post.

It invites others to trot out the "worship" insult, as it occurred upthread.

I'm not sure what "idolization" of the President looks like, though the term gets thrown out there. I just think those far-flung characterizations are toxic to any discussion.

[ruggerson]

67. well for starters

I was speaking about myself, not anyone else. The OP is about my own, individual take on what the administration has accomplished so far and perhaps a suggestion that a healthy amount of Democrats are not always extreme partisans either for or against the President, as this website might sometimes have us believe. To the contrary, they might be pleased that he is in the Oval Office, but disagree with some of what has come down the pike, to date.

Furthermore, even though I referenced it (in the negative) ONLY to myself, "idolize" does not have to carry negative connotations. I think there are a lot of kids out there who DO idolize this President, as they do a rock star or a sports figure, and that can be a positive thing. Role models are good things for children.

[Starry Messenger]

68. Excellent post, ruggerson.

I think that "hater" meme is pure projection. We all voted for the President here. We all did our job and helped get him elected. Thank you for a thoughtful examination of the state of things.